Comments by "Roope Reimi" (@Yurikon3) on "Extra History"
channel.
-
10
-
6
-
5
-
Try to look up some theories on internet about "Hebrew view of faith". It is good to remember that words might gain or lose some spice during the history. What I have learnt that "faith" is not only about belief itself, at least James declares that even Demon believe and shudder. While strangely worded, Paul seems to assert that faith is substantical and based on some kind of perceived evidence. Of course, this evidence might not be something which modern people are looking for.
However, it can be argued that was it primarily to prove God's existence, what evidence was meant for. When apostles were witnessing, they didn't, at least by the book, use modern evangelical personal testimonies that much. Rather they spoke in long course the history of Hebrew journey, from enslavement to freedom and bondage again. It pressed upon the fact that by Mercy of The God, they were saved from capture from the eqypt, but they even then paid back God's work with deprave action. Still, God carried them to the end. I suppose the witness was not about primarily the fact that God with His power rescued them, but rather the character of this God. Remember that back then question was not that much "Do you believe in God?" but rather "What god(s) you believe in?" Usually the god one served was seen in his/her conduct. Gods usually were bit like superpowered human beings, but Hebrew God differentiated from them in the fact that this God cared about the conduct, and even if people displeased Him in their actions, He still was ready forgive if the conduct was changed.
When person reflects themselves against characteristics and ultimate honor, they see their misgivings and might change their course. So I would say that faith is not absolute belief itself, but rather "what if there really is God like that?" and start to take effort to transform. Even if he/she is not that absolute in his belief, one still believes in the standards and reality that without proper broker, one couldn't approach God like that. Tiny bit of belief which makes one act accordingly is better than huge belief which products barren fruit.
4
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
It could be also about honor and shame. In culture back then there did not necessarily exist "gift without ropes attached". When someone gave a gift, sense of honor was imbued and unwillingness to accept the gift or not be as eager to give was mark of dishonor.
Circumsion was originally mark of covenant God made for Abraham. This covenant was tied to the promise of Messiah, safety, greater future and the survival of his descendants. I'd dare to say that question was not merely about if circumsion caused divide but about honor of the God's covenant mark. Marks of the covenant usually are meant to reflect the deeper (spiritual) form of the pact of covenant. In this case, circumsion of the heart. Now, if person, who is still unstable and lacks proper character, takes circumsion, people start to couple circumsion (the mark of God) to dishonourable behaviour and it could bring the dishonor to the giver of the Mark. Does this sound unfair? It is pretty much same as people considering all Jews greedy moneygrubbers just cause Rotschild or Soros.
Thus it can be argumented that just like baptism in and itself can be just dive into water, scalpelling one's member can be just that, mutilation. Outer mark of circumsion should only follow after person is fully committed to be discipline and uneagerness to scalpel oneself without being sure if one is up to the responsibility is already showing fear of the Lord, unwillingness to tarnish His marks with one's inadequate ways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lot of confusion arises from several things. Not knowing historical context of the commandment (that it had reasonable reason behind it rather than merely strange gimmick), preordained worldviews which affect at least to eschalotogical matters. Propably one problem is the world of the New Testament and the lack of understanding the Old Testament culture and how it actually affected to the faith of NT and the legacy of coming Messiah.
Propably the greatest separation was the separation of the Jews and Christianity (which was actually more or less just another fringe in Jewish culture). This separation in the end was unnecessary since the point that someone is Messiah was not the problem since Jews were expecting Messiah during that time and there had said they were ones before. As high priest Gamaliel said in Acts, these former movements were destroyed. Some believing Yeshua as Messiah was not the problem, problem was that it was said he was directing people away from the teaching of God, Torah. This is not a small matter. Old Testament (Torah) was the base point of confirming prophecies and see if certain things were true and also give land-marks to moral living. If Messiah did not accept these terms and act perfectly according to them, he couldn't be Messiah.
Occassions where people said Yeshua went against the Law (Torah) were not really infringments but showcases how people had understood and used commandments wrong (Sabbath or justice).
Wall of text, pardon me. However, as strange as it might sound Torah, Old Testament, has full application to faith of Yeshua and he expected apostles and disciplines allege to its rules. the thing is that Torah is wide and large and converts simply cannot grasp everything of it so basic tenets are given before non-Jews could go to synagogues to hear the Torah.
Problem why modern Christianity has problems with these things is that it is actually pretty Pauline-Christianity which bases itself to the letters of Paul which to be honest are told to be hard to understand by Peter himself. Many of the doctrines are built upon his letters which offer answers to questions we don't know. However, it becomes hard to question these doctrines for believer because there is given the risk of eternal suffering. Irony is that Paul actually commends Bereans noble for hearing his message but still looking up their texts to confirm that he didn't speak boogaloo. Faith which cannot ask questions is not really strong faith.
1
-
I'd suppose to say that confusion arises, because people love big drama and do not necessary see the scene in layman terms of the time. I.E regular average Jacob the farmer of the day. When you go to western churches and galleries you see lot of flashy and ethereal images, which in certain circles is even considered to cause theological "kitsch". This otherworldly longing might murky the basic message man wanted to send.
There has been some theories that if we try to look "mysterious" passages of the NT with the eyes of the regular Hebrew of the day, there might open more practical, but still essential message. The reason hyperbole was used was likely because people were mostly oral and remembering important messages was far more easier when some serious messages were used. Middle eastern talk over all was pretty temperamentical.
This view in mind for example rebukes Jesus gave for pharisees were common ripostes for their arguments but had edifying course in them. We modern people easily reflect our modern ideas to ancient texts and if we then try to apply them without grain of salt, it might lead to disastrous effects. Another example where Jesus is said to urge people to hate their parents. This passage should be contrasted his critique of the Pharisees where Pharisees had overriden God-given commandment with their tradition. What was the commandment they broke? "Honor thy mother and father". In his example the son had promised to give oxen to his parents, but then had promised to give it as a sacrifice in the temple. Oxen became "corbah".
About eating His flesh. You have propably seen those Kung Fu movies where youngster goes to his master to learn kicks and stuff and usually important life-lessons. Condition is that youngster keeps following the master and do his will. Same thing in Jesus's case. There were even before him some travelling sages who taught about the character of God and how they should act to inherent "Eternal Life". It was recorded by Rabbis that when young man decided to follow this master, he was expected to follow him to the end, and even decline his familial ties for it. It was like he was living on "the flesh" of his master. Master became so essential to discipline, that he could not separate from them. And Jesus said to Samaritan woman, that he has water which shall take away the thirst once and for all. Reason why people ceased to follow him was not extravagant plead to eat his flesh (he would have been false messiah then), but to go with him to Jerusalem where most likely they would be facing their deaths along him. Not very extravagant, but big request anyway. Most of the Jesus' pleads are not really that hard to grasp. Problem is... That we are usually just too foolish or fearful to actually act upon the teachings.
1
-
1
-
About that cultural difference... It is not easily seen by westerner but majority of the world still functions in honor-shame dialect while west functions in innocence-guilt spectre. Nuances of both exists in both worlds. Even The Bible seems to speak more in honor-shame dialect which might have been a reason why there has appeared some strange movements in Christian west, when ancient honor-shame infrastructure is looked up through western lenses. Guilt-innocence is more driven toward individualism, since it appeases: "I have not done anything wrong, so it's a-ok". Honor-shame is more all-around in its matters. It is not merely about the fact that you have not really done anything wrong, it is also about what kind of message of yourselves and your kin you send toward others. Somepeople might consider this unnecessary pomp but in eastern mind, when one composes oneself to look good for the others and respect the situation, it is taken as a mark of humble heart. There is not separation of innards and outwards. Outwards give some denote about one's character. In negative sense it might promote good facade, dark innard.
British man's approach to by pass all those middle-men was more serious offence than to give heed. Whence someone was to present himself to great authority, one approaching had to realize his place and recognize hierarchy. By agreeing using middle-men one shows the honor of his character by being able to supercede his "self" and go by the rules. Secondly, the middle man was appointed by higher ruler, so message sent through him was approved way to get things through. By bypassing the messengers, person dishonors the ruler by putting himself up to position alike to higher ruler. It was serious offence which might be hard to grasp for individualist. This same kind of dichtonomy can be found even in The Bible.
1
-
1